About the National Center

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.

Fine print

Copyright The National Center for Public Policy Research

All links are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any document on this website be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.

Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author.

Obama's Mystery Soccer Game - True Scandal Revealed

DavidB, a commenter on American Thinker, had this to say about a post about this "mystery" there:

The soccer fields you describe are at Fort Reno (that's the tower in the background of your photo). And, by fortunate coincidence I drove right by the fields Saturday morning. While I can't confirm the President's presence, I can confirm the following: 1) There were most definitely soccer games underway on the brand new soccer fields; 2) There were multiple DC Police cars in attendance with officers directing traffic (not normal); and, 3) At least a half-dozen black Chevy Suburbans were parked on the street, surrounded by a significant contingent of grey-suited men talking into their lapels.

So, if Obama didn't make it to the game, they sure were prepared for him. And I'm baffled by your description of this neighborhood as a "high crime" area. I live three blocks from Fort Reno and work barely a block away. Ever see a Whole Foods in a "high crime" area? There's one a block from that soccer field. Ask around about Northwest Washington and you'll soon discover that the only things "high" in the area are incomes and property values. Surely Mr. Obama's real offenses against the Republic are sufficiently obvious that we don't have to divine secret meaning from back-page accounts of his weekend activities. Oh, and I'll be walking home from work tonight, right down Chesapeake Street, in the dark, alone, unarmed...

I don't know DavidB and can't independently verify what he says he saw Saturday morning, but he's certainly right that "the only things 'high' in the area are incomes and property values." In fact, in chasing Obama there, however unfruitfully, some well-paid members of the press pool would have been returning nearly to their own neighborhood.

But don't despair, scandal-mongers, there is truly is a verifiable scandal here. The article in Time bloggers are citing as source of the soccer game's location uses an apostrophe incorrectly.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Friday, March 12, 2010

I just love how Attorney General Eric Holder blames an inanimate "process" for his own failure in a quote cited at the end of this Legal Times blog post:

"While I made a good faith effort to fully answer the Committee's questions in my initial submission," Holder wrote, "it appears that the process I used to search manually and electronically for relevant material from my three decades in public life was deficient."

Should we have confidence the errors were inadvertent, when the Attorney General sees such a need to couch his terms?

I wonder how many defendants being prosecuted by DOJ for obstruction of justice will now use this defense before a jury:

"While I made a good faith effort to fully comply with the Justice Department's subpoena, it appears that the process I used to search manually and electronically for relevant material was deficient."

Defense lawyers may have a bit of fun with this one. Here's hoping the ones who do are defending innocent people.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Did Charles Rangel Vote for Sarbanes-Oxley?

Yes, on July 25, 2002, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) voted to agree to the conference report for the Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, better known as Sarbanes-Oxley.

If you just came back from a deserted island, Rep. Rangel has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee for breaking House rules regarding corporate sponsorship of Congressional travel; Rep. Rangel's defense is that he didn't know corporations paid for his travel, his staff did, and he shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of his Congressional staff.

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, corporate CEOs can be held criminally responsible for signing false reports, including reports prepared by staff (as most are).

Regardless of the double-standard Rangel seeks to hide behind, Peter Flaherty of the National Legal and Policy Center -- which broke the Rangel scandal in the first place and is still the best source of information on it -- says it simply is not credible that Rangel didn't know he was violating House rules by accepting direct corporate support for his travel.

Go here to visit the National Legal and Policy Center's website, which shows pictures of Charlie Rangel at the Caribbean conference, facing a sign listing the conference's many corporate sponsors.

Perhaps next the Congressman will claim he cannot read?

In related Charlie Rangel-scandal news, House Democrats are increasingly pressuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask Rangel to step down from his post as chairman of the uber-powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

He's the climate scientist and lead IPCC report author, Dana reminds readers, who wrote in what are now called the Climategate emails, "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

(I'm guessing Dr. Trenberth and the other scientists caught up in Climategate write only very, very careful emails these days. Like, "I'll be home at 5 o'clock.")

Dana also quotes others in the climate community explaining that recent snowstorms could be caused by global warming:

"It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming."

"There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm."

(Ever notice that skeptics are not supposed to use snowstorms as reason to be skeptical of the global warming theory [see Keith Olbermann, here, for instance], but the global warming alarmists use them to claim support for their theory?)

To find out who Dana was quoting and what else she had to say, read her op-ed here.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Maybe the IPCC used a primary school geography book that wasn't peer-reviewed?

Steve McIntyre reports that the last IPCC report (AR4) claimed 55 percent of land on which 60 percent of the Dutch live is below sea level. The true figure is 20 percent.

Over the last few days there has been a dustup between climate scientist Michael Tobis and a number of bloggers and commentators after Tobis questioned whether a woman who had raised nine kids is qualified to question climate scientists (because, as he put it, she hadn't had the time "to think about complicated grownup stuff").

By the time a mom has helped nine kids through their primary school science homework, she might have a pretty good idea about the geography of the Netherlands.

Under fire for the Glaciergate, Amazongate and Please-Fund-My-Institute-Gate sectors, among others, of the ever-broadening Climategate scandal, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and a man who cares so much about global warming, he doesn't use his free electric car because it isn't big enough for his chauffeur), has now all but wished a slow and painful death upon his critics.

I don't want to get down to a personal level, but all you need to do is look at [my critics'] backgrounds. They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder - I hope that they apply it to their faces every day - and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/Aids is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.

Typical of IPCC research, everything here except, presumably, Pachauri's wish that we would put a carcinogen on our faces daily is an invention, and a strikingly obvious one at that.

The man doesn't even lie well.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

After the British government's Information Commissioner's Office concluded the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia violated Britain's Freedom of Information Act law, Prince Charles visited to show his support...

...that is, he showed support for the Climate Research Unit, not the Information Commissioner (the report starts at 4:16 in the video).

Surprising to me, the prince specifically met with Phil Jones (reported at 5:21 in the video), the head of the unit (on leave since the scandal broke) and the man most under fire for the FOIA violation.

Typically in these bad-PR situations an institution will get rid of problem-causers first, and then bring the bigwigs in for a photo op expressing support for the replacement team. Fresh start, break with the past, that kind of message.

Seems Prince Charles doesn't see a need for a fresh start.

John O'Sullivan on Climategate.com has another detail about the prince's visit. Reportedly, the prince told the Climategate team:

Well done all of you. Many, many congratulations on your work. I wish you great success in the future. Don't get downhearted by these little blips here and there!

Well done?Blips?

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Bizarre Climategate Update #1: Turns out There is No Statute of Limitations on British FOIA Violations

Christopher Booker at the London Telegraph reports the British government office that determined the University of East Anglia violated Britain's Freedom of Information Act was wrong when it claimed it could not prosecute due to a statue of limitations.

I reported the original claim here; more detail on what this may mean can be found on Climategate.com.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

British Government Declares Climategate University Guilty of Freedom of Information Act Violation

Climategate news update: The Times of London reports the British government has determined "the University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming."

The British government's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) will not prosecute, however, because a statute of limitations requires that a complaint be filed within six months of the violation for prosecution to take place.

The government has nonetheless gone on the record that a violation occurred, which should give pause to anyone who believes the scientists involved weren't trying to hide anything.

The Times reports that the ICO is now seeking to have the statute of limitations aspect of the law changed so that prosecutions can take place in the future, should similar situations emerge.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Journalists Against Transparency?

The IPCC's Compromised 2007 Assessment Report (AR4)

In response to my "Three Steps the IPCC Must Take," which, among other things, urged the IPCC to "adopt an uncompromising transparency policy, which includes the release of all data, all emails, all meeting minutes, all drafts and all other documentation related to the development of assessment reports and all other policy pronouncements, in the past and from this date forward," I received the following communication:

Will your Center also be adhering to this stringent transparency standard?

If so, when will such information from your group be available?

Thanks,

Steven DolleyManaging Editor, Inside NRCPlatts Nuclear

I am amazed that a journalist took umbrage at my call for IPCC transparency (which is how I read his response, which I posted in full).

I believe Mr. Dolley misses the point in several ways.

First, (alas!) no nation has ever signed a treaty pledging to undertake actions based on pronouncements made by the National Center for Public Policy Research, as they have for those of the IPCC;

Second, the IPCC is funded by, among others, U.S. taxpayers (we are a tax-exempt institution -- that is, donations to us are tax-deductible; we still pay many taxes -- but we do not accept government funding);

Third, we are not doing peer-reviewed science, though if we did, we would make all the relevant documents public as we urge the IPCC to do;

Fourth, our management is not profiting on the side based on statements made, or conclusions published by, our personnel, as media reports indicate has been going at the IPCC;

Fifth; as we are a tax-exempt institution, like all other such U.S. institutions, our internal documents are not private, as the IRS can request a review of them, including all emails going back three years, at any time, just by asking. No such check exists on the IPCC.

Should at some future date governments around the world start lining up to brag about how strongly they are trying to implement policies based on NCPPR conclusions, I would be happy to suggest to our board of directors that we make all our internal emails, and any other relevant documents, related to the development of those policies, public.

In the meantime, I remain intrigued by the notion of a journalist being opposed to transparency.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Three Steps the IPCC Must Take

In the wake of admissions the IPCC knew all along it was putting bogus science in its 2007 Assessment Report, that the false prediction was included specifically for its "impact on policymakers and politicians," and that this allegedly was covered up as long as it was because the IPCC chairman was raising money for his personal pursuits based on the prediction, the IPCC must immediately take three steps to restore its credibility. If it does not, the Obama Administration should use its influence to have it shut down.

To restore its credibility, the IPCC should:

1) Return its half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and replace its current leadership;

2) Adopt and enforce a strict conflict-of-interest policy;

3) Adopt an uncompromising transparency policy, which includes the release of all data, all emails, all meeting minutes, all drafts and all other documentation related to the development of assessment reports and all other policy pronouncements, in the past and from this date forward.

Step one would signal to the world that the IPCC is serious about reform.

Step two would reduce, though not eliminate, the temptation faced by IPCC personnel to tailor conclusions to moneymaking, career or fundraising opportunities for themselves or affiliated businesses or institutions.

Step three would be a constant reminder to IPCC personnel that their work genuinely will be peer-reviewed, in a universal sense, which is as it should be given the gravity of the IPCC's work.

Politicians relying upon IPCC recommendations are considering policies that would limit the access of billions of people to low-cost energy in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is a grave step that should be undertaken only if the alternative is worse. As many have considered the IPCC to be the institution that can answer that question, given the gravity of these circumstances, no level of transparency and ethics can be too high.

Global warming believers and "skeptics" do not often agree, but this is a subject upon which we should be able to reach a true consensus. No one benefits when the IPCC knowingly publishes bogus science.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

IPCC Breaking Scandals: Where to Get News

News is breaking fast and furiously in the breaking IPCC scandal. We'll have more to say about it shortly, but won't have time for a full roundup of links to news about all the breaking events. For that, I strongly recommend visits to Climate Depot and Tom Nelson.

Don't go to one; go to both.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Wall Street Journal on Climategate Grant

"Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money: A Case Study in One Job 'Saved'," the Wall Street Journal editorializes this morning on the stimulus funds grant received by Climategate scientist Michael Mann:

As for stimulus jobs - whether "saved" or "created" - we thought readers might be interested to know whose employment they are sustaining. More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

Mr. Mann is the creator of the famous hockey stick graph, which purported to show some 900 years of minor temperature fluctuations, followed by a spike in temperatures over the past century. His work, which became a short-term sensation when seized upon by Al Gore, was later discredited. Mr. Mann made the climate spotlight again last year as a central player in the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which showed climatologists massaging data, squelching opposing views, and hiding their work from the public.

Mr. Mann came by his grants via the National Science Foundation, which received $3 billion in stimulus money. Last June, the foundation approved a $541,184 grant to fund work "Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing," which will contribute "to the understanding of abrupt climate change." Principal investigator? Michael Mann...

Friday, January 15, 2010

Climategate Stimulus Grant Covered by Fox, Limbaugh, Many Others

Our press release revealing that over half a million dollars in federal stimulus money is funding the work of a key Climategate scientist, Penn State's Michael Mann, has been receiving a lot of attention.

Stuart Varney of the Fox Business Channel interviews Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project

Rush Limbaugh reads and comments upon our press release about a half hour into his show

RUSH: From the National Center for Public Policy Research: "In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy." Michael Mann is one of the guys doctoring all the data at the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. You was one of the guys "hiding the decline" in global temperatures. He got a half a million dollars in stimulus money -- once again, illustrating that it is a slush fund. It is not an economic stimulus package, and it was never intended to be one except in your mind.

The Washington Examiner covered the story in a "The Daily Outrage: Mann Money" story. The Examiner wants people to call the office of Vice President Joe Biden about this. To find out why, click here.

Noel Sheppard on Newsbusters wrote a post with news about another climate change-related grant Penn State has recently received that is funded with federal stimulus money.

Said Noel:

...Potentially adding insult to injury, Penn State received additional stimulus funds to investigate the impact of climate change last week:

A nearly $1.9 million grant from the National Science Foundation is enabling a Penn State-led group of researchers to continue studies on the potential effects of climate change on the spread of infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue. The grant is part of federal stimulus funding authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

This grant appears to have nothing to do with Mann's department. However, given the high-profile the university is currently under as a result of his involvement in ClimateGate, it seems absurd that any federal funds involving climate change would be going to this school while it is investigating its chief proponent of this myth.

Maybe more importantly, why are economic stimulus funds being given to a university for scientific research in the first place, especially one with such political overtones?...

...I'm sure now that NCPPR has exposed this hypocrisy, press outlets across the fruited plain will be aggressively investigating economic stimulus grants to Mann and others involved in the ClimateGate scandal in order to inform the public about how their tax dollars are being spent.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

In a post early Thursday morning, Gateway Pundit provided background information on the hockey stick itself, as well as Climategate, before discussing this grant.

Media Matters attacked us for saying anything about this; according to them, the activities that make up the scandal known as Climategate are business-as-usual, and therefore, not worthy of note. If you say so, guys!

FoxNation covered it here (thanks for telling us about this, Media Matters!).

If your blog covered our press release and I missed it, I apologize. I also know that we had a lot of calls and bookings from talk radio shows today, but, regrettably, I don't have a list available at present.

If the mainstream press is covering it, I'm at this point unaware of any examples.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Green Weenie

As John Hinderaker reports on Powerline, longtime global warming alarmist Stephen Schneider spoke at a press conference at the COP-15 climate conference in Copenhagen.

When journalist Phelim McAleer asked a polite question about Climategate, Schneider's staff called in security to shut down the questioning. A United Nations security officer actually tells the journalist, "If you don't shut that [the camera] off, I'm going to take it away from you." (How typical of the corrupt United Nations!)

Stephen Schneider is too scared to answer a simple question, which tells you all you need to know about Climategate: If it wasn't a big deal, the global warming alarmists wouldn't be so afraid of it.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

The Media Matters Action Network has a page up claiming we at the National Center for Public Policy Research are "doing everything in [our] power" to draw "attention to the so-called 'Climategate' scandal" and implying that the fact that Exxon Mobil has donated to us is the reason.

What dishonest dopes. We've barely touched on Climategate. A few sentences here and there. In fact, given the gravity of the scandal, we really should have done more.

Media Matters is trying to claim it is relevant that handful of groups that have in the past received funding from Exxon Mobil have mentioned Climategate, which is a huge, major story (not broken by any of these groups, incidentally) repeatedly covered by every major newspaper in the English-speaking world and in many many newspapers and other media elsewhere. Hello? Are all the major papers in Britain, including the openly left-wing Guardian and its most famous ultra-green columnist (who takes Climategate very seriously indeed), in the pockets of Exxon Mobil?

Sorry, Media Matters, your desperate ploy won't work. Climategate has shown the unreliability and unprofessionalism of some Ph.Ds the U.N.'s IPCC and other organizations -- including yours, Media Matters -- have relied on for many years to help prove to the world that massive job-killing, government-growing treaties and policies are necessary. This is YOUR scandal, not ours, and even if you put a nice pretty red bow on it, we aren't going to accept it from you as a gift.

Yes, Exxon Mobil has contributed to us and we appreciate its support as we do the support we receive from any of our 100,000+ supporters. (Without Exxon Mobil, the whopping approximately 1.5 percent of our annual revenue that comes from corporate sources would be a little smaller. How much corporate support do you get, Media Matters?)

But Exxon Mobil's funding does not specifically support our work on climate nor has the corporation suggested in any way, shape or form that we mention, promote, acknowledge or otherwise notice Climategate, a scandal that is getting worldwide attention because it is newsworthy.

And we remind Media Matters that the only reason Media Matters knows about Exxon Mobil's gifts to public policy institutions is because Exxon Mobil and many of the recipient foundations (including us) freely and voluntarily disclose this information. (Does Media Matters CEO David Brock voluntarily disclose which corporations and special interests help pay for his nearly $300,000 salary?)

Which reminds me. Media Matters found eight public policy groups that have received at least one contribution from Exxon Mobil since 2001 that either have mentioned Climategate or, in the case of one, are affiliated with an individual who wrote a story about Climategate in an unaffiliated opinion journal (wow, there's a smoking gun for you). Here's a seven-page list of all the public policy institutions that received gifts from Exxon Mobil in 2008 alone. Over 130 institutions, some of them very liberal, are listed, and yet Media Matters could only find eight public policy groups receiving such gifts since 2001 that have mentioned Climategate or work with someone who has? Only eight?

P.S. to Media Matters: Have you guys apologized yet for promoting environmentally-useless climate policies that can hurt people based on unverifiable information? People really do rely on the jobs you want to kill, you know.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Quote of Note: George Will on Climategate

"The Washington Post learns an odd lesson from [Climategate]: 'Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.' These scientists overstated and censored because they were 'goaded' by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be 'goaded' into intellectual corruption."

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Max Baucus

Interesting news has broken about Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Apparently he has committed a severe conflict of interest in the performance of his senatorial duties and what a future investigation could determine to be honest services fraud, a felony.

Baucus has successfully cultivated a reasonable, moderate and even thoughtful reputation. In fact, he runs an unprofessional staff and is extremely partisan. He has managed not to develop the reputation of a Charles Schumer (D-NY), Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Dick Durbin (D-IL) in part by maintaining reasonably cordial relationships with some key Republican Senate enablers and in part because he crafts his public statements with the sensitivities of his constituents his very red state in mind.

No doubt the mainstream media will drop the Baucus story as soon as possible, though I suppose we should be grateful it has covered it as much as it has. The story deserves continued scrutiny and, in my view, an investigation into whether criminal activity has occurred.

Mr. Baucus is somewhat between a rock and a hard place in terms of the excuse he gives for nominating a woman with whom he was and is in an intimate relationship for the very significant post of U.S. Attorney.

The Senator has more or less announced that the two are now cohabitating, aka, a near-marriage relationship. Yet had the Senator nominated his own wife for the post of U.S. attorney, the conflict of interest would have been obvious.

But if the relationship was not so serious, that raises the Elizabeth Ray question, for the lady in question was a member of his taxpayer-financed staff. It was said of Elizabeth Ray that she could not type, but it wasn't her lack of typing skills that made her employment a scandal. Public officials are not supposed to use tax monies to pay people with whom one is sleeping.

Prosecuting U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein said of the case, according to Gov.Exec.com, "It is illegal for any federal employee to make an official decision that directly affects their financial interest, unless they disclose that conflict of interest and get approval from the government."

Did Congress exempt itself from the conflict of interest laws that applied to this climatologist?

Or might Senator Baucus get off the hook here because he hasn't married his lady? Because he hasn't made an honest woman of her, does that make him an honest man?

Conflict of interest guidelines, however, are not the only cause Baucus has for concern. "In 1988," reported the Wall Street Journal before the revelations in the Baucus case, "Congress criminalized 'a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services... Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.'" The Journal continued, "In the public sector, cases typically involve bribery or some other personal gain by a public official, such as a failure to disclose a conflict of interest that benefited the official."

Does a man benefit when the woman with whom he is living gets a position more prestigious than any she has ever held before? Some might say no, but...

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | DownloadShattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Nero Profited While Rome Burned

Looks like the lobbying profession, taken as a group, couldn't be happier that the feds are messing up our health care system so badly.

Notice that the lobbyists quoted in the The Hill story by Jeffrey Young that I linked to above apparently did not want to be identified by name. I guess they still have enough pride to be ashamed of themselves.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Biden Commits Plagiarism Again?

Speaking to the AFL-CIO's 2009 legislative conference in Atlantic City, Vice President Joe Biden said, "When a guy in Minooka is out of work, it's an economic slowdown. When your brother-in-law's out of work, it's a recession. When you're out of work, it's a depression."

Hmm... Sounds a bit familiar.

Didn't Ronald Reagan say on the campaign trail in 1980, "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his"?

I hate it when people remake a classic.

Written by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at [email protected]. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Project 21's Borelli to Discuss ACORN on Fox

The topic is on the undercover filmmakers who investigated ACORN and whether they should be prosecuted.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Deneen Borelli to be on Fox and Friends Monday

Deneen will appear at approximately 6:15 AM Eastern. She is scheduled to discuss President Obama's lackluster reaction to the ongoing ACORN scandal as well as the Obama Administration's Department of Justice's investigation of the CIA.

As noted here Saturday, Deneen also will be a guest of the nationally-syndicated G. Gordon Liddy radio show on Monday at noon Eastern and on the Great American panel on the September 24 9-10 PM Eastern Hannity Show on the Fox News Channel, among other upcoming appearances.

Posted by Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. E-mail comments to [email protected].Subscribe to this blog's feed.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

The Atlantic's often-silly list (Paul Krugman is #1!) is not completely without value, however, as it provides a cautionary tale of how foolish we can look when we pretend there is no such thing as a conflict of interest.

But back to Andrew Sullivan.

Why has a man who is not a citizen of the United States been commenting on U.S. domestic policy for the last couple of decades as if he had a citizen's stake in the nation? As Robert Stacy McCain, Ace, Patterico, Ann Althouse, Glenn Reynolds and others have reported (somewhat incidentally, given the more interesting scandal with intriguing implications to which their attention was primarily directed), after a couple of decades of telling us how to arrange our domestic affairs (in more ways than one), Sullivan's retained his foreign citizenship, at least until whenever his upcoming citizenship hearing is.

Way back in the days when Andrew Sullivan was still a 20-something toiling for the New Republic, I took a phone call from a pollster during a major British election while at a friend's house in London. As I was keenly interested in the outcome of the election, I was sorely tempted to assist my favored candidate with a miniscule poll bump. But I kept my opinions to myself and told the pollster, that, as I am an American, I have no business influencing Britain's internal political processes as if I were a British subject.

Sullivan took a different course. He has been happy to tell Americans how to vote while owing his allegiance to a foreign power. (I don't see a disclaimer on the linked page anywhere, do you?)

A bio of Sullivan I found in a source he presumably approved (an employer, not the often-fictional Wikipedia) doesn't mention his citizenship either way (beyond the fact that he was born and raised in England, a fact he does mention reasonably often), but it does say he testified before the U.S. Congress on domestic legislation as early as 1996. He may have testified as a neutral expert and taken no position on the legislation, but seeing as how the bill was the Defense of Marriage Act, I'm not going to bet on it. And an article Sullivan penned for the October Atlantic entitled "Dear President Bush" is topped by a paragraph including the phrase "our nation's history" (referring to the United States of America), starts with Sullivan saying to the most recent President Bush, "I supported your presidential campaign in 2000, as I did your father's in 1988," and includes the words "the America I love and have made my home."

I ask you, are these activities and phrases that could lead a reasonable reader to believe Andrew Sullivan, domestic commentator, had become an American? And was advising us as one?

Would a little disclaimer once in a while of the I'm-telling-you-how-to-vote-but-be-aware-if-I-ever-get-drafted-it-won't-be-the-U.S.-Army's-unform-I-wear variety really have gone amiss?

Because the team a writer is playing for actually is important information for a reader to know.

Next time I'm in London I suppose I'll answer the pollster (though given that the two biggest parties these days are both run by climate-deluded NHS vote whores, I can't imagine endorsing either one of them). So what if I have no allegiance to the Queen?

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

E-mail comments to [email protected]. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Speaking of the Government Letting People Die...

Speaking of the government letting people die, here's a story from Fox News last year about a 53-year-old cancer patient in Lane County, Oregon who wanted Oregon's public health plan to help him pay for chemotherapy.

Nothing doing, said Oregon, as the man's cancer was such that chemotherapy stood less than a 95 percent chance of guaranteeing the man would live an additional five years.

Two years or 4 years 11 months of life was not worth the cost of chemo to Oregon.

But don't think Oregon's government-run health plan lacked sympathy. It sent the man a letter offering to foot the bill for physician-assisted suicide.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project has repeatedly warned Americans that passage of cap-and-trade will lead to the creation of a new economic bubble (see here, here or here).

Now Rolling Stone magazine is getting into the act, and it's not pulling any punches.

A sample paragraph to whet your appetite:

...cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman [Sachs], is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected. [Emphasis in the original]

"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who spoke out against oil futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."

We've said all along that if you actually believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming, and you honestly believe that this global warming must be fought by suppressing energy use, the only approach that has any hope of not being corrupt is increasing energy taxes. We do oppose increasing energy taxes, but would prefer that by far to cap-and-trade.

I did not expect to see this sentiment in Rolling Stone, but we welcome it to the club.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Carol Browner's Hijinks: They Call This Open Government?

Mark Tapscott is on the case of White House "climate czar" Carol Browner, who appears to be continuing her wily Clinton Administration pattern of dodging and weaving whenever legal niceties interfere with her left-wing agenda.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner's conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner "intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards."

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act...

Browner should answer these charges and very specifically, too, but President Obama must be held to account as well. It's not as though he didn't know what he was getting when he appointed Browner. As my husband David Ridenour pointed out in an op-ed published around the U.S. early this year, when Browner was head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration, it made a practice of skirting the law.

Throughout [Carol Browner's] years as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration, EPA officials routinely violated the Anti-Lobbying Act - a law prohibiting federal employees from using agency money for 'telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress.'

In 1995, the EPA flagrantly violated that law when it lobbied against the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, a bill that would have curbed some of the EPA's worst abuses.

As James Hinchman, comptroller general of the United States, noted, EPA officials 'distributed EPA fact sheets to various organizations' and 'directly lobbied the Congress.' Not only that, but an EPA regional administrator wrote a strong op-ed designed to stop the bill's passage.

Four years later, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., accused the EPA of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act again. Byrd - who has made a career of steering pork to his state - complained that the EPA's Transportation Partners Program was coordinating and funding anti-road lobbyists against the law and his state's interests. Browner was forced to terminate the program.The following year, Browner was at it yet again. This time, her agency was accused of allowing special interests to improperly influence last-minute - so-called midnight - environmental regulations.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to preserve communications with such groups. Instead, Browner had her computer hard drive re-initialized, wiping it clean. Lamberth then held the EPA in contempt for 'contumacious conduct.'As little respect as she's shown for the law, Browner has shown even less for science. During her years at the EPA, agency scientists who didn't toe the party line were subjected to relentless harassment.

David Lewis, an EPA Science Achievement Award recipient, publicly criticized the quality of science used in crafting regulations. In response, the EPA charged Lewis with ethics violations and repeatedly denied him promotion. Although he won whistle-blower judgments against the EPA, he was eventually forced into retirement.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Subjects of Congressional Ethics Probe Fight Back

Project 21 just issued a press release criticizing the Congressional Black Caucus's apparent plans to retaliate against the House Office of Congressional Ethics, which concluded that several CBC members should be investigated by the full Ethics Committee for alleged violations of gift rules.

The release says:

Project 21 Critical of Members of Congress Under Ethics Investigation for Retaliating Against House Ethics Office and for Playing 'Race Card'

For Release: June 29, 2009Contact: David Almasi at (202) 507-6398 x11 or [email protected]

An apparent effort by the Congressional Black Caucus to deter ethics investigations of its membership is drawing sharp criticism from members of the black leadership group Project 21.

CBC members reportedly are considering changes to the law authorizing the House Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE, in retaliation for the OCE referring allegations against several CBC members to the House Ethics Committee.

CBC members reportedly also have complained that the OCE does not have enough minority staffers, adding a racial element to the apparent retaliation.

"What does the racial or ethnic makeup of the Office of Congressional Ethics have to do with the fact that these members of the Congressional Black Caucus may have violated ethics laws? It has absolutely no bearing on the charge, and to claim that is a lack of diversity at the OCE is playing the race card plain and simple," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, also a commentator for Pajamas Television. "It is laughable that CBC members are charging the OCE with some sort of racial targeting. The OCE was created by Speaker Pelosi, someone who shamelessly bends over backwards to be politically correct."

Of the three investigative counsels hired by the OCE, one is black. The chairman of the formal Ethics Committee investigation sparked by the OCE referral is a black Member of Congress, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), a CBC member.

"A legitimate complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, but political pressure is now being applied to cover up the allegations and brush everything under the rug," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "So much for those promises to 'drain the swamp' and root out the 'culture of corruption.' It seems that swamp has turned into a hot tub for them rather quickly."

"President Obama has long proclaimed that it is special interest lobbyists who are the root of what is wrong with our federal government. This latest lapse in congressional sensibilities exposes the fact that it is wayward members of Congress themselves, whether Republican or Democrat, who pose the greatest threat to good government for the citizens of this country," said Project 21 member John Meredith. "The idea of disbanding the one avenue the citizens of this great nation have to track congressional malfeasance is an affront to the pledge of transparency in government and the use of the race card to facilitate the closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics is insulting not only to black people but to people of every color."

In November 2008, Flaherty attended the "Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference" on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. Although the conference officially was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, according to Flaherty, signs and materials present indicate the event was funded by Citigroup, Pfizer, American Airlines, Verizon, IBM and other large corporations with business before Congress. CBC members Charles Rangel (D-NY), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Delegate Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended the event.

Members of Congress have been prohibited since 2007 from taking funded trips of over two days if those trips are paid for or coordinated by companies that "employ or retain a registered lobbyist."

Flaherty alerted the OCE. In his letter to the OCE, Flaherty noted: "My characterization of the trip as a 'junket' is based on my observation that the sessions were lightly attended. Most attendees spent significant time at the beach or the pool. Members of Congress attended the sessions when they had a speaking role." Flaherty also said any suggestion that attendees could not see evidence of corporate involvement was "implausible."

A Gateway Pundit post on this tonight leads with: "After Weeding Out GOP-Linked Dealers, Chrysler Looking To Open New Dealerships."

This article sticks out in my mind: "After Surviving Katrina, a Local Car Dealer Becomes a Casualty of the Economy." Nothing overtly political in that story, but it's worth a read for the angle of the guy who pulled up his bootstraps to get a dealership in the first place, only to be hit by Katrina and spend years recovering, now to suffer a killing blow from his government.

Paul Ibrahim notes, accurately, I believe: "Regardless of whether these specific allegations are true, one would be foolish to believe that government makes decisions based on business judgment as opposed to political considerations."

Friday, May 22, 2009

Guess the Date

When was this written?

The ...investigation of the Speaker of the House has been an opportunity to direct public attention to several issues that conservatives have considered key. Among these: the unprecedentedly heavy-handed tactics of the majority in Congress...; the frequently-disastrous self-serving involvement of Members of Congress into foreign affairs...; the leaking of classified information for partisan gain...; the unfair targeting of conservatives only in politically-motivated "ethics" probes.

If you guessed May 22, 1989, you are correct.

It could almost be written today, couldn't it?

The paragraph comes from an in-house report I wrote on May 22, 1989 regarding National Center for Public Policy Research activities to bring public attention to the ethics problems of Speaker of the House Jim Wright of Texas. I found the report while searching some old files for something else entirely and couldn't resist posting part of it after I realized the date was twenty years ago exactly today.

I was amused by the following paragraph:

Our second activity was a "Clean the House" rally "in demand of a full and fair investigation of Speaker Wright" held at the Democratic National Committee on April 20... The Democrats were not pleased. An internal DNC memo circulated to all staff inside the headquarters in advance of the rally instructed DNC staffers to ignore the rally and forbade them from looking out the windows overlooking the rally site. Some staffers disobeyed, however, and threw a large stack of copies of photographs of Republican Members of Congress and leading conservatives (Oliver North, Jerry Falwell) from the DNC roof onto the rally.

I no longer recall, but as we all had carried brooms at the rally, I guess we swept them up.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].Subscribe to this blog's feed.